| Literature DB >> 28431497 |
Yan Li1,2, Qingxiang Meng1,2, Bo Zhou1,2, Zhenming Zhou3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Here, we aimed to investigate the effects of ensiled mulberry leaves (EML) and sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (SMFP) on fecal bacterial communities in Simmental crossbred finishing steers. To this end, the steers were reared on a standard TMR diet, standard diet containing EML, and standard diet containing SMFP. The protein and energy levels of all the diets were similar. Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene and quantitative real-time PCR were used to analyze and detect the fecal bacterial community.Entities:
Keywords: Ensiled mulberry leaves (EML); Fecal bacteria community composition; Sequencing; Sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (SMFP)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28431497 PMCID: PMC5401608 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-017-1011-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Dietary treatments for unique OTUs, richness estimates, and diversity indices within the fecal content
| Item | Treatmenta | SEMb |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | EML | SMFP | |||
| SeqsNum | 166,882.30 | 184,494.30 | 178,779.30 | 19,052.18 | 0.8 |
| OTUsNum | 7498.00 | 6932.75 | 6503.25 | 610.56 | 0.54 |
| EvenSeqsNum | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | - | - |
| EvenOTUsNum | 5866.00 | 5253.00 | 5012.75 | 346.74 | 0.25 |
| PD-whole-tree | 214.29 | 196.79 | 191.16 | 10.17 | 0.29 |
| Observed species | 5866.00 | 5253.00 | 5012.75 | 346.74 | 0.25 |
| Good’s coverage | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.22 |
| Richness estimate | |||||
| Chao1 | 11,386.85 | 9787.32 | 8929.23 | 834.02 | 0.16 |
| ACE | 11,616.52 | 9930.3 | 8982.59 | 937.71 | 0.19 |
| Diversity indices | |||||
| Simpson | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.45 |
| Shannon | 9.70 | 9.58 | 9.50 | 0.10 | 0.37 |
a CON Control (n = 4), EML Ensiled mulberry leaves (n = 4), SMFP Sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (n = 4)
bSEM: standard error of the mean
Effect of EML and SMFP diet on changes in phyla (as a percentage of the total number of sequences) in the fecal bacterial community
| Phylum | Experimental dieta | SEMb |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | EML | SMFP | |||
|
| 56.79 | 58.06 | 55.18 | 1.39 | 0.28 |
|
| 35.09 | 35.34 | 37.28 | 1.6 | 0.63 |
|
| 2.16 | 1.62 | 1.83 | 0.28 | 0.46 |
|
| 1.99 | 1.47 | 1.94 | 0.18 | 0.17 |
|
| 1.27 | 1.41 | 1.42 | 0.15 | 0.75 |
|
| 0.63 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.41 |
| Others | 2.06 | 1.78 | 2.03 | 0.18 | 0.59 |
|
| 1.61 | 1.64 | 1.48 | 0.12 | 0.54 |
a CON Control (n = 4), EML Ensiled mulberry leaves (n = 4), SMFP Sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (n = 4)
b SEM Standard error of the mean
Different letters in the same row indicate a significant difference between values within the row (p < 0.05)
Fig. 1Average relative abundance of fecal bacteria in steers fed different diets
Fig. 2Bar chart showing the relative abundance of fecal bacterial composition at the phylum level
Effect of EML and SMFP on changes in the genus composition (as a percentage of the total number of sequences) in the fecal bacterial community
| Genus | Experimental diet1 | SEM2 |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | EML | SMFP | |||
|
| 5.27 | 5.95 | 6.51 | 0.45 | 0.21 |
|
| 2.36 | 2.16 | 2.95 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
|
| 2.31 | 2.35 | 2.33 | 0.07 | 0.90 |
|
| 1.12 | 1.18 | 1.37 | 0.12 | 0.33 |
|
| 1.14 | 0.91 | 1.28 | 0.18 | 0.37 |
|
| 0.96 | 1.03 | 0.95 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.88b | 1.21a | 0.71b | 0.10 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.57 | 0.65 | 1.02 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
|
| 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.77 | 0.26 | 0.65 |
|
| 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.41 |
| Others | 4.02 | 4.29 | 4.55 | 0.23 | 0.30 |
| Unknown | 80.40 | 79.79 | 77.48 | 1.53 | 0.40 |
1 CON Control (n = 4), EML Ensiled mulberry leaves (n = 4), SMFP Sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (n = 4)
2 SEM Standard error of the mean
Different letters in the same row indicate a significant difference between values within the row (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Venn diagram illustrating the distribution of unique, shared, and common phylotypes among 16S rRNA gene libraries in the three groups
Fig. 4Weighted (a) and unweighted (b) principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) illustrating relationships among fecal bacterial populations in steers fed different diets
Fecal bacterial abundance in finishing steers fed a total mixed ration supplemented with EML and SMFP
| Bacteria | Experimental diet1 | SEM2 |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | EML | SMFP | |||
|
| 0.0268 | 0.0280 | 0.0361 | 0.0149 | 0.8933 |
|
| 0.0006 | 0.0068 | 0.0007 | 0.0032 | 0.3577 |
|
| 0.0005 | 0.0089 | 0.0008 | 0.0049 | 0.4510 |
|
| 0.1069 | 0.1211 | 0.1735 | 0.0615 | 0.7336 |
|
| 0.0725 | 0.1424 | 0.1277 | 0.0170 | 0.0591 |
|
| 0.0993 | 3.2201 | 3.9093 | 0.9618 | 0.0652 |
|
| 0.0001 | 0.0170 | 0.0179 | 0.0049 | 0.0702 |
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0047 | 0.0020 | 0.0016 | 0.2129 |
|
| 0.0001 | 0.0105 | 0.0060 | 0.0031 | 0.1337 |
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0021 | 0.0009 | 0.0007 | 0.1935 |
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0484 | 0.0038 | 0.0269 | 0.4220 |
|
| 0.0114b | 1.7266a | 0.5975b | 0.1804 | 0.0015 |
|
| 0.0034b | 0.2918a | 0.2086a | 0.0435 | 0.0086 |
1 CON Control (n = 4), EML Ensiled mulberry leaves (n = 4), SMFP sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace (n = 4)
2 SEM Standard error of the mean
Population sizes are expressed as percentages of the 16S rRNA gene copy number of the total bacteria
Different letters in the same row indicate a significant difference between values within the row (p < 0.05)